That's only part of the issue, but no.
If you'd done a super search before asking, you would have proposed [^ :] instead, but would have still found *tons* of nodes.
| [reply] [d/l] |
| [reply] [d/l] |
No, I said \w+ not (http|https|...). And that was intentional. I hate "reserved word" schemes.
A few exceptions isn't a big deal. People can't link to those few nodes by title (unless the titles are updated, since those titles mostly aren't great anyway). Having a whole raft of nodes matching /^\w+:/ is a problem (for your proposal).
| [reply] |